alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RONALD DIBLE; MEGAN DIBLE, husband and wife, Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v. CITY OF CHANDLER, a municipality in the State of Arizona; CHANDLER POLICE DEPARTMENT, a law enforcement agency of the City of Chandler; BOBBY JOE HARRIS, Chandler Police Chief and husband; JUDY HARRIS, wife, Defendants - Appellees. No. 08-16548 D.C. No. 2:03-cv-00249-JAT

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 21, 2009 ** San Francisco, California Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. 

# FILED

JAN 06 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 In Appellant Ronald Dible’s and Appe llant Megan Dible’s prior appeal to this court, we held the district court abused its discretion when it imposed sanctions on the Dibles pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, because “Rule 11 does not provi de for the imposition of sanctions upon the clients for the sins of their attorney.” Dible v. City of Chandler , 242 Fed. App’x 473, 474 (9th Cir. 2007). After our mandate issued in that appeal, the district court granted Appellees’ Rule 60(a) motion to correct a clerical mistake in the judgment and ordered the clerk of th e court to vacate its prior judgment and enter an amended judgment imposing the Rule 11 sanctions against the Dibles’ counsel. The Dibles now appeal the district court’s order granting Appellees’ Rule 60(a) motion. Because the district court di d not abuse its discretion in granting the motion, we affirm. The record clearly reflects the district court originally intended to impose the Rule 11 sanctions against the Dibles’ counsel and not against the Dibles personally. The district court stated in its July 8, 2005, order that it was imposing the sanctions “against Plaintiffs’ counsel ” and set forth in detail counsel’s conduct that supported the sanction award. Therefore, the district court’s subsequent mistake in its February 13, 2006, order di recting the clerk of the court to enter judgment on the sanction award “against Plaintiffs” was the type of “clerical3 mistake” correctable under Rule 60(a). See Blanton v. Anzalone , 813 F.2d 1574, 1577 (9th Cir. 1987). AFFIRMED.
_____________ No. 95-2953SI

_____________ Marcia Prew, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Southern * District of Iowa. Shirley S. Chater, Commissioner * of Social Security, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

_____________ Submitted: May 1, 1996 Filed: May 7, 1996

_____________ Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM.
Marc ia Prew appeals the district court's order upholding th e Commissioner's denial of disability insurance benefits. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm. We conclu de the Commissioner's decision that Prew could perform her past relevant work is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. See Robinson v. Sullivan , 956 F.2d 836, 838 (8th Cir. 1992 ) (stand ard of review). The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) properl y discounted the 1992 and 1993 statements of the t reating physicians because those s tatements contained vocational opinions or were unsupported b y medical records contemporaneous to Prew's last insured date. See Nelson v. Sullivan , 946 F.2d 1314, 1316-17 (8th Cir. 1991) (per curiam) (medical testimony is not conclusive on the ultimate issu e of disability); Jones v. Chater , 65 F.3d 102, 104 (8th Cir. 1995) (where impairment onset date is

### -2-

critical, retrospective medical opinions alone are usually not sufficient) . Further, the ALJ correctly used the criteria lis ted in Polaski v. Heckler , 739 F.2d 1320 (8th Ci r. 1984), in assessing Prew's credibility. Finally, the ALJ posed a proper hypothetical question to the vocational expert base d on Prew's credible limitations. See Starr v. Sullivan , 981 F.2d 1006, 100 8 (8th Cir. 1992) (vocational expert's response to hypothetical questio n provides substantial evidence where hypothetical question sets forth with reasonable precision the claimant's impairments); Rappoport v. Sullivan , 942 F.2d 1320, 1323 (8th Cir. 1991) (hypothetical question need onl y include claimant's limitations found credible). We thus affirm. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
# C_2008239EN.01000201.xml

| 18.9.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 239/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 239/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

17 September 2008

(2008/C 239/03)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,4224 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 150,26 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4599 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,79515 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,6125 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5921 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 132,94 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,2900 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,005 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 241,89 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7059 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,3480 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,6425 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 30,255 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,8006 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,7905 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5176 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 11,0667 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 2,1589 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0420 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 587,75 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 11,5929 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,7249 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,1128 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 13 370,56 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,9137 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 66,950 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 36,3158 |
| THB | Thai baht | 48,838 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,5831 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 15,2182 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,4224

JPY

Japanese yen

150,26

DKK

Danish krone

7,4599

GBP

Pound sterling

0,79515

SEK

Swedish krona

9,6125

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5921

ISK

Iceland króna

132,94

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,2900

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,005

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

241,89

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7059

PLN

Polish zloty

3,3480

RON

Romanian leu

3,6425

SKK

Slovak koruna

30,255

TRY

Turkish lira

1,8006

AUD

Australian dollar

1,7905

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5176

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

11,0667

NZD

New Zealand dollar

2,1589

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0420

KRW

South Korean won

1 587,75

ZAR

South African rand

11,5929

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,7249

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,1128

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

13 370,56

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,9137

PHP

Philippine peso

66,950

RUB

Russian rouble

36,3158

THB

Thai baht

48,838

BRL

Brazilian real

2,5831

MXN

Mexican peso

15,2182

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
No. 40315.

#### Protests 916450-G(A), etc., of Sucrest Corporation (Philadelphia).

*521Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Following the ruling in *Androvette*v. *United States*(C. D. 63) the court dismissed the protests for lack of jurisdiction
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T M A RI A J . BA RA J A S, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N os . 09- 72642 10- 71263 A ge nc yN o. A 077- 772- 829 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i ons f

orR e vi e w of

O r de r s of

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r9, 2012 ** B efo re: R A W L IN S O N , M U R G U IA , an dW A T F O R D , C i rcu i tJu d g es. I n the s e c ons ol i da t e d pe t i t i ons f orr e vi e w , M ar i aJ . B ar a j a s pe t i t i ons f

or re vi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) order di sm i ss i ng her app ea l fr om an i m m i grat i on j ud ge’ s ( “ IJ ”) re m ov alorder, and the B IA ’ s orderdenyi ng her 

# FI LED OC T 15 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 72642 2 m o tio n to r e c o n s id e r . O u rju r is d ic tio n is g o v e rn e db y8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . W e d i s m i s s th e p e t i t i o n s f

o rr e v i e w. W e l ac k j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew the agency’ s di sc re t i on ary det erm i nat i on that B ar aj as fa i l ed t o sho w exce pt i on aland extre m el y unu sualhardshi p t o h er q u a lif y in g r e la tiv e s , an dB ar a ja s d o e s n o t r a is e ac o lo r ab le du e p r o c e s s c la im c h a lle n g in g th is h ar d s h ip d e te rm in a tio n . See Mendez- Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F . 3d 97 5, 97 8 (9th C i r. 20 09 ). W e a ls o la c kju r is d ic tio n to r e v ie w th e B I A ’s d e n ia l o f B ar a ja s ’ m o tio n to r e c ons i de rthe B I A ’ s di s c r e t i ona ryhar ds hi p de t e rm i nat i on, a nd B ar a j a s doe s not r a is e ac o lo r ab le du e p r o c e s s c la im c h a lle n g in g th e B I A ’s d e n ia l. Se e V ilc h iz - So to v. H older , 6 8 8 F .3 d6 4 2 , 6 4 4 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 1 2 ) ( “[ T ]h e B I A ’s d e n ia l o f th e m o tio n to re consi der f

al l s out si de the court ’ s j uri sdi ct i on because the courtcann otre consi der th e d is c r e tio n ary , f

a c t- b a s e dd e te rm in a tio n th a t p e titio n e r s f a ile dto d e m o n s tr a te the re qu i si t e har dshi p. ”) . B ar a j a s ’ r e m a i ni ng c ont e nt i ons a r e una va i l i ng. PETI TI O N S FO R R EVI EW D I SM I SSED .
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 70 (Thursday, April 12, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 18468]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-6926]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-392-000]


Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, LP; Notice of Report of Flow 
Through of Penalty Revenues

April 6, 2007.
    Take notice that on April 3, 2007, Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line 
Company, LP (Panhandle) tendered for filing its Annual Report of Flow 
Through of Penalty Revenues.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of 
Sec.  154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone 
filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on 
the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before 
the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or 
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b5f3f0e7f6fadbd9dcdbd0e6c0c5c5dac7c1f5d3d0c7d69bd2dac3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="75333027363a1b191c1b10260005051a070135131007165b121a03">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-6926 Filed 4-11-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
No. 48049.

#### Protests 892805-G, etc., of F. Blumenthal & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *United States*v. *Armand Schwab*(30 C. C. P. A. 72, C. A. D. 218) the claim at 25 percent under paragraph 1504 (b) (1) was sustained.
Draft 

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Bay Area to Ce
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

September 28, 2009 

p0921 

Order 

 

September 28, 2009 

138885 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 138885 

 COA: 281875 

Washtenaw CC: 06-001873-FC 

JO ANN CALDWELL, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 21, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
# C_2008218EN.01000401.xml

| 27.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 218/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 218/4

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

26 August 2008

(2008/C 218/02)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,4598 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 160,19 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4590 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,79530 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3755 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,6138 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 121,61 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,9155 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,520 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 236,60 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7037 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,3242 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,5615 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 30,304 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,7447 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,7120 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5379 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 11,3979 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 2,1083 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0794 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 588,99 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 11,4300 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,9923 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,1663 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 13 393,67 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,9502 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 67,160 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 36,0210 |
| THB | Thai baht | 49,998 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,3985 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 14,8624 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,4598

JPY

Japanese yen

160,19

DKK

Danish krone

7,4590

GBP

Pound sterling

0,79530

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3755

CHF

Swiss franc

1,6138

ISK

Iceland króna

121,61

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,9155

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,520

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

236,60

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7037

PLN

Polish zloty

3,3242

RON

Romanian leu

3,5615

SKK

Slovak koruna

30,304

TRY

Turkish lira

1,7447

AUD

Australian dollar

1,7120

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5379

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

11,3979

NZD

New Zealand dollar

2,1083

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0794

KRW

South Korean won

1 588,99

ZAR

South African rand

11,4300

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,9923

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,1663

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

13 393,67

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,9502

PHP

Philippine peso

67,160

RUB

Russian rouble

36,0210

THB

Thai baht

49,998

BRL

Brazilian real

2,3985

MXN

Mexican peso

14,8624

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION II

STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 58392-5-II

Respondent,

v. UNPUBLISHED OPINION

RICHARD J. VICTORINO,

Appellant.

CHE, J. — In 1987, Victorino pleaded guilty to second degree burglary, but he failed to 

appear for sentencing. In 2022, Victorino moved to withdraw his guilty plea. The trial court 

denied Victorino’s motion and sentenced him.

Victorino argues that his conviction must be reversed because the record is insufficient to 

permit effective appellate review, and that his guilty plea was involuntary because there was an

insufficient factual basis to support the plea. 

Prior to oral argument, the State filed a motion to strike oral argument, requesting 

summary reversal and remand for the trial court to dismiss the charge against Victorino with 

prejudice. Victorino joined in the State’s motion. We grant the State’s motion for summary 

reversal and remand to the trial court for the State to move to dismiss the charge with prejudice.

1

 

1 This court granted the State’s motion to strike oral argument, retaining this matter for non-oral 

argument on the September 6, 2024 docket. Ord. Striking Oral Arg., State v. Victorino, No. 

58392-5, at 1 (Wash. Ct. App. Sept.4, 2024).

Filed

Washington State

Court of Appeals

Division Two

September 10, 2024
No. 58392-5-II

2

ANALYSIS

In its motion to summarily reverse Victorino’s conviction and dismiss this appeal, the 

State submits that a reversal, and a remand for the charge to be dismissed with prejudice, would 

best serve the ends of justice. The State also submits that upon further consideration of the 

matter, it has decided that the purposes of criminal prosecution have been met because Victorino 

has rehabilitated himself since the commission of the burglary in 1987. 

Given the position of the State, we grant the State’s motion for summary reversal of 

Victorino’s conviction for second degree burglary and remand the matter to the trial court for 

further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

CONCLUSION

We reverse Victorino’s conviction for second degree burglary and remand the matter to 

the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the 

Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW 2.06.040, 

it is so ordered.

Che, J.

We concur:

Glasgow, P.J.

Price, J.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

 EASTERN DIVISION 

JAMES W. WIRTZ, III, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. Case No.: 2:11-cv-1131 

 JUDGE GEORGE C. SMITH 

 Magistrate Judge Kemp 

 

TIMOTHY BUCHANAN, et al., 

 Defendants. 

 ORDER

 On January 30, 2013, the United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and 

Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s First Motion for Summary Judgment be granted 

on the issue of exhaustion, that Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Summary Judgment be denied, and 

that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment be granted. (Report and Recommendation, 

Doc. No. 39). This matter is now before the Court on Plaintiff’s Objections to the Report and 

Recommendation. (Objection, Doc. No. 48). The Court will consider the matter de novo. See

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 

 The objections present, once again, the issues presented to and considered by the 

Magistrate Judge in the Report and Recommendation. For the reasons stated in the Report and 

Recommendation, this Court agrees that the objections are without merit and hereby 

OVERRULED. 

Case: 2:11-cv-01131-GCS-TPK Doc #: 52 Filed: 06/20/13 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2 

The Report and Recommendation, Doc. No. 39, is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. 

Plaintiff’s first Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 24) is hereby GRANTED on the issue of 

exhaustion. Plaintiff’s second Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 30) is DENIED. 

Defendants’’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 34) is GRANTED. 

 The Clerk shall remove Documents 24, 30, 34, and 39 from the Court’s pending motions 

list. 

 The Clerk shall remove this case from the Court’s pending cases list. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

/s/ George C. Smith__________________ 

GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case: 2:11-cv-01131-GCS-TPK Doc #: 52 Filed: 06/20/13 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
# Official Journal C 111/11 M

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 111 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 4911 May 2006 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 111

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 4911 May 2006

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Commission |
| 2006/C 111/1 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2006/C 111/2 | Euro exchange rates | 2 |
| 2006/C 111/3 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections | 3 |
| 2006/C 111/4 | Summary information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1/2004 of 23 December 2003 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises active in the production, processing and marketing of agricultural products | 7 |
| 2006/C 111/5 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4217 — Providence/Carlyle/UPC Sweden) (1) | 11 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Commission

2006/C 111/1

Euro exchange rates

1

2006/C 111/2

Euro exchange rates

2

2006/C 111/3

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections

3

2006/C 111/4

Summary information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1/2004 of 23 December 2003 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises active in the production, processing and marketing of agricultural products

7

2006/C 111/5

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4217 — Providence/Carlyle/UPC Sweden) (1)

11

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN